Practice Profile: Counter-Narratives for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization

This practice involves the use of counter-narratives, which attempt to challenge and deconstruct narratives suggesting extremist ideologies, to prevent the violent radicalization of participants. Types of counter-narratives include counter-stereotypical exemplar, persuasion, and inoculation. The practice is rated Effective for reducing risk factors for violent radicalization in participants, compared with participants in control groups.

Practice Goals/Target Population

Violent extremism, or the enacting of violent acts with an ideological (such as political or religious) intent, can manifest in targeted assault, destruction of property, and terrorism. Violent radicalization is generally used to refer to the process in which a person or group adopts and accepts violence as an acceptable method to impose ideologies (Carthy et al. 2020; UNHCR 2016).

One way radicalization occurs is through narratives, or a recollection of events that tells a story to impose a sense of structure and purpose. In the case of violent radicalization, narratives that support violent extremist ideologies suggest that the group’s goals can be achieved only through violence against those they consider to be the out-group. Counter-narratives deconstruct and discredit the themes of dominant narratives by addressing the underlying logic and “countering” it. The goal of counter-narratives is to present individuals with an alternative, nonviolent social construction, to prevent violent radicalization. Counter-narratives can target any population that has encountered harmful and persistent narratives (Carthy et al. 2020).

Practice Components

Counter-narratives can follow many different techniques to dismantle existing stereotypes and implicit biases. One technique is counter-stereotypical exemplar. This form of counter-narrative relies on the exposure to forms of media that exhibit counter-stereotypical information to demonstrate examples that challenge the dominant narrative in the participant’s life. For example, Ramasubramanian and Oliver (2007) presented White students (who had negative implicit attitudes toward Black and Indian American individuals) with newspaper articles depicting counter-stereotypes following a media literacy video to combat negative stereotypes.

Another technique is persuasion. These types of interventions were designed to induce peripheral-route persuasion, which is when a participant is persuaded by a message—that is, cues besides the strength of the actual argument. For example, Cohen, Tal–Or, and Mazor–Tregerman (2015) had university students (who were against on-campus demonstrations) read a story with a counter-attitudinal protagonist to increase personal identification with the “other side” (Carthy et al. 2020).

One more technique is inoculation. Inoculation is an attempt to prevent radicalization through narratives by warning participants of a potential influential narrative, and then offering counter-arguments to the harmful narrative.

Practice Theory

Counter-narrative interventions are implemented through various techniques and therefore are based on many different social theories. One theory is media priming theory, which posits that a person’s perceptions of their environment is directly influenced by the media to which they are exposed (Riles, Funk, and Davis 2018). Counter-narrative techniques that demonstrate a member of an out-group acting in a prosocial way rely on media priming theory to influence the person’s opinions and challenge their previously held stereotypes. Another theory is the stereotype conflict model. This model suggests that a person’s hostile feelings toward outgroups are reliant on perceptions of warmth and competence. For example, a member of an out-group that is stereotyped as troublesome or incompetent is more likely to be the victim of hostile attitudes than if they were perceived as passive or gentle (Ramasubramanian and Oliver 2007). Counter-narrative interventions that present members of a stereotyped out-group in a non-stereotypical way are based on the stereotype conflict model.

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Alhabash, Saleem, and Kevin Wise. 2012. “Peacemaker: Changing Students’ Attitudes Toward Palestinians and Israelis Through Video Game Play.” International Journal of Communication 6:356–80.

Briggs, Rachel, and Sebastien Feve. 2013. Review of Programs to Counter Narratives of Violent Extremism: What Works and What Are the Implications for Government? London, England: Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

Cohen, Jonathan, Nurit Tal–Or, and Maya Mazor–Tregerman. 2015. “The Tempering Effect of Transportation: Exploring the Effects of Transportation and Identification During Exposure to Controversial Two-Sided Narratives.” Journal of Communication 65(2):237–58.

Ramasubramanian, Srividya, and Mary Beth Oliver. 2007. “Activating and Suppressing Hostile and Benevolent Racism: Evidence for Comparative Media Stereotyping.” Media Psychology 9(3):623–46.

Riles, Julius Matthew, Michelle Funk, and Warren Davis. 2018. “Positive Exposure to Muslims and Perceptions of a Disdainful Public: A Model of Mediated Social Dissent.” Communication Monographs 86(3):1–21.

(UNHCR) United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2016. Report on Best Practices and Lessons Learned on How Protecting and Promoting Human Rights Contribute to Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism. Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.